Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.V Pg.6

July 1982

Saved - - - From What?

Robert F. Turner

The gospel is God's power to save (Rom. 1:16), but from what? "Save, demands a peril. Where no peril exists, there can be no salvation. Further, where man does not recognize a peril, salvation is — at best — difficult. See the wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked Laodiceans? They are in bad shape, but worse yet — "thou knowest not" (Rev. 3:17). The prospect for saving them is scant. They may say —as some today — "Go teach people who need help." Or in an insulted tone, "You think I am lost."

The gospel is God's power to save man from sin. Man is accused (Rom. 2:15) his own conscience testifying against him. He is guilty; stained by sin. The good news is that Jesus came to save from sin (Mt. 1:21). The death of Jesus and the gospel obeyed enables guilt to be washed away from the mind of both God and man. This is forgiveness. Then there remains no more conscience of sin (Heb. 10:2), and the saints sing, "The burden of my heart rolled away."

The gospel is also God's power to save from punishment for sin. A soul is saved from death (Jas. 5:20), from wrath (Rom. 5:9). "The soul that sins, dies" continues as a timeless principle. Pardon is the only answer. "...as sin... reigned unto death" — the principle of justice — "even so might grace reign... unto eternal life by Jesus Christ" — the power of the pardon (Rom. 5:21).

The gospel, however, does not save from the natural consequence of sin. The thief goes to prison even though he becomes a Christian. God forgives and pardons, but society rightfully demands punishment. Neither does the gospel save from sin's physical consequence. The drunk damages mind and body in slavery to the bottle. By the gospel he is forgiven and pardoned, yet his physical maladies — the consequence of sin — are unchanged.

The gospel is God's power to save from the practice of sin. Paul shows us the man sin rules (Rom. 7:14-25). He cannot do as he wills — "what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I." He has lost control — "...it is no more I... but sin that dwelleth (continuously rules) in me." He cries "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" (v.24). It is a plea for salvation from slavery. The answer? "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord (v.25). Again, you were "the servants (slaves) of sin" but you have been made "free from sin" to become "servants of righteousness" (Rom. 6:17) Peter declares that Christians have "escaped the pollutions of the world" (2 Pet. 2:20). They may again — as once before — be "entangled and overcome". Such terms show the peril of sin's awful dominion. How dreadful if there were no power to break such bondage! We rejoice because the gospel breaks these bonds. True, the Christian has weak moments; he sins. In this, he loses a battle, but through the power of the gospel he is winning the war with sin. Christians strengthen themselves and encourage others through the gospel's truth. "If the Son... shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." (Jn. 8:32,36).

Joe Fitch 6326 Peacepipe San Antonio, TX

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.V Pg.7

July 1982

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Brethren deem to have renewed interest in studying the Roman letter, but find many passages hard to explain. Give us dome help in P.T. ST

Reply:

Romans has some difficult passages but the theme is clear enough to all who will spend time in hard objective study. In P.T., V.14, N.3-4-5 we gave our summary of Romans — imperfect but it should be helpful. Here are four things that seem to hinder our clear understanding of Romans.

1. We think "F.R.C.B." when we see the word gospel. We know salvation is by grace, but having fought to impress the need to obey, we may not be sufficiently impressed with a feeling of dependence upon God, and appreciation for promise, mercy, etc. We may have so completely related "forgiveness" to our "doing" that the "good news" of Christ's mercy is slighted.

2. We tend to raise hackles to fight "faith only " at ever use of faith'-- like, being justified by faith..." (Rom. 5:1). I find many have little knowledge of the evangelical concept of "experience of faith". Being convinced that is wrong, they may launch into an attack without knowing the enemy in a way that could take them to the heart of the error. And this could develop such a prejudice as to color their reading of what Paul is saying in Romans. It may keep us from appreciating the opposing concepts of system of faith vs. law. 3. Many can only think "Law of Moses" when they see "law" in Romans or Galatians. While it is true that the Law of Moses (Old Covenant, Judaism) is primarily under consideration as respects application; Paul deals with a much greater principle. One is justified (free of guilt) on a law basis only when there is no sin. This characteristic of justification by law is the "curse" from which Christ freed us when he died in our behalf (Gal. 3: 10-13), so that God can be both just and the justifier of believers (Rom. 3: 26). If one reads Romans, thinking only of Old vs. New Covenant, some of the rich points will be missed. For all who can do so we suggest the use of a Greek text, noting the absence of the article (the) in many places.

4. We often tend to think Holy Spirit, when Paul refers to our mind, heart, or ''spirit". ALL early Greek letters were capitals, so upper case on the word "spirit" only indicates the translators thought Holy Spirit. Paul's contrast of law and faith puts emphasis upon the inner man, the desire of his heart, etc. (Rom. 1:9; 7: 25; 2:29; 6:17). In particular, Rom. 8: should be read in the context of chap. 6 and 7. Evangelical concepts have colored "spirit", causing many to think "enabling power" or influence beyond that of the Spirit delivered word, when Paul was giving encouragement and hope to those who serve God with a sincere heart.

There is no need to fear the fair import of Romans. Paul does not teach "faith only"; he does not say intent can take the place of obedience; nor does he teach the Holy Spirit as an influence or enabling power apart from the word. He does teach truth!

[RETIREDFAN1]

.XIX No.V Pg.8

July 1982

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

A friend of mine, with the best of intentions, offered me a book entitled "How To Get Rich" (or words to that effect). I thanked him, but told him I really wasn't interested in being rich, and maybe he should give the book to someone else.

He ridiculed my statement, saying, "Everyone wants to be rich. You are just conditioned by the Protestant Ethic to reject riches and extol hard work as a virtue." I told him I did not like work particularly, but really did not want riches either. When he continued to insist, I told him I already knew the contents of the book even though I had never read it.

He challenged me on that one, so I tried to produce. "The first chapter probably tells us we have far greater potential than we suspect — may even fail to prosper because we believe we are going to fail. We must believe in ourselves, in order to tap this great unrealized strength. Right?" He says, "So, what's wrong with that?"

"The second chapter probably deals with goals — the importance of having specific ultimate aims — so that each transaction or facet of our life can become a contributing factor to the desired achievement. How am I doing?"

My friend allows that is not bad — in a general sort of way — "but isn't that good advice?? And in later chapters he shows you how to save, invest wisely, and build, step by step, to your goal. It sounds good to me!"

And it sounded good to me, also. The self-confidence, positive thinking, goal setting, and coordination of total effort advocated in the book will work wonders in a man's life. But that was not my objection. This book advocated such all-out effort in the pursuit of bigger barns; and a better book tells me that when the bigger barns are built and filled, my soul can take flight and leave them. I don't want to be rich because it costs too much. I want to go to heaven, and I know I cannot have two ultimate aims, one temporal and one eternal, and give priority to both.

He gave me the book anyhow; and I gave it to a fellow who wanted to be rich, traded the book for a bottle, and thought he reached his goal.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.VI Pg.1

August 1982

Point Of No Return

Robert F. Turner

The Hebrew writer, exhorting brethren to be faithful, tells them Esau was a "profane person ... who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears" (Heb. 12:16-17).

A "profane person" says he had little regard for genuinely important matters; gave up first-born privileges to satisfy a sudden burst of appetite. But the heavy punch line is, the choice was irrevocable. There was no changing the outcome. The A.S. has "in his father" in italics, following "he found no place for a change of mind." Others have balked at Esau being "unable to repent —" linking that with the tears; but we believe this unnecessarily limits the word "repent" to a moral change affecting Esau's soul. The eternal well being of the Hebrews was in mind, but the illustration need not go so far. We believe the illustration is given to show our actions can take us to a point from which consequences are unavoidable. Regretting you are late to an appointment does not change the time of day. Heb. 6:4-6 warns that saints may so reject Christ ("crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh") that there is no further incentive to repentance — no legitimate appeal can move them. Or, rejecting Christ's self-sacrifice "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins" to which they can turn (10: 26-31). These are extreme warnings!!

Besides, Esau seemed only sorry he had lost the blessings, not sorry he had been a "profane person." Isaac "trembled very exceedingly" when he learned he had blessed other than Esau, but said, "yea, and he shall be blessed" (Gen. 27:30-38). When Esau heard this (note, rt) he cried, saying "Bless me, even me also." Again, "Bless me, even me also, O my father and Esau lifted up his voice, and wept" (v.38). The weeping was not in penance, but for the blessing.

While there is life, and while the gospel can still prick the heart, a moral change and eternal destiny may be effected. But this — life consequences may be unalterable, by our having passed the point of no return.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.VI Pg.2

August 1982

Striving About Words

Robert F. Turner

A well-known preacher was closing his sermon with a plea concerning the "sovereign grace" of God. I think he had no more in mind than "grace," but being familiar with the classic theological expression I wondered, momentarily, if he had embraced a doctrine that denies free moral agency. That's what word association can do for us.

If you are well read in the John Wesley concept of the "second work of grace" (or his "sanctification") you may want to censor many of the songs we commonly sing. Their nomenclature is there — why not, since they wrote many of our hymns — but we cannot fairly charge all who sing the words with accepting the doctrine they were intended to convey. Blissfully ignorant of the original thought, we may assign some poetic meaning, and worship "in spirit and truth."

What I'm saying is semantics plays a big and frequently unrecognized part in some of our "issues." Multiple reports from a recent debate can be summed as "They believed the same thing on most points, but said it differently, and refused to budge a syllable." Some have adopted terminology from the Calvinistic material they read, and insist upon saying it that way, even though careful examination shows they do not accept the ideas the Calvinist expressed in those ways. On the other hand, brethren have developed their own way of saying it, and woe to him who changes words.

True, our terminology may indicate what we are feeding into our mind. We may be unaware of what we are saying to a Presbyterian, or a Humanist, because they hear our words with the connotation their writers have given. All the more reason to beware "the language of Ashdod." But sometimes "our" way of saying things is more "Church of Christ" than scriptural — as "church" terms are not infallible.

Is it too much to ask that we compare ideas (tested via "other" words) before jumping on one another? If one says we are justified by faith, does he mean "faith only" or does he mean what Paul meant (Rom. 5:1)? We might ask, "What do you mean by 'sovereign grace'?" and discover he just said it because he read it somewhere, and had no particular "doctrine" in mind. The "trigger happy" writer shoots at each rattle in the bush because he is inexperienced, lacks "cool", or is out to "get" someone. There is no excuse for the later, and he could correct the former by applying Matt. 7:12.

Fight error, but "strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearer" (2 Tim. 2:14).

[RETIREDFAN1]

ol.XIX No.VI Pg.3

August 1982

Flea Chasers

Dan S. Shipley

David's popularity in the kingdom angered king Saul. He was especially resentful when certain women paid tribute to David in a song which said, "Saul has slain his thousands and David his ten thousands". We are told that Saul looked at David with suspicion from that day on" (1 Sam. 18:9). After unsuccessful attempts to have him slain, Saul and 3,000 of his men pursue David into the wilderness of Engedi. While there, and following an interesting incident taking place in a cave, David confronts a surprised Saul and in the ensuing conversation asks him, "After whom is the king of Israel come out? After whom dost thou pursue? After a dead dog, after a flea?" (1 Sam. 24:14) Imagine! The king of Israel, the head of a great nation, with all of his kingly duties and responsibilities, taking 3,000 men and chasing after one innocent man! David sees Saul's great campaign as something like chasing fleas — and in doing so makes a point with an application appropriate for all of God's people of all time.

As a called-out and redeemed people we, like Saul, have God-given responsibilities to be concerned with and that deserve priority. We have set before us the greatest and most urgent work on the face of the earth! As a royal priesthood (1 Pet. 2:9), we should busy ourselves with offering up spiritual sacrifices. As soldiers of Christ, we are to be continually fighting the good fight of faith (2 Tim. 2:4; 1 Tim. 6: 12). As wise men living in days that are evil and with an abiding awareness of the judgement to come, we must be redeeming the time (Eph. 5:16). We need to guard against allowing our time, talents, and resources becoming occupied with trivial and unprofitable matters — and becoming flea chasers!

To this end it is important that we recognize and overcome the little "fleas" that become big hindrances to our faithfulness. Pride, for instance, can make flea chasers of us as it did Saul. An inordinate concern for the approval and praise of men has turned many a heart from the Lord (Jn. 12:43). Such pride hinders the acknowledgement of wrong, confessing sin, forgiving and seeking forgiveness, appreciating others and ministering to their needs. A form of selfishness to which all Christians are susceptible, pride diverts many from the heavenly goal.

In addition, the anxiety such as Jesus deals with in Matt. 6 makes flea chasers of others. "No man can serve two masters... Ye cannot serve God and mammon..." (v.24). Or, as it relates to our theme, "You cannot serve God while chasing fleas!" Concern is one thing, but distracting worry is something else. Personal problems, family problems, business and economic problems are like the poor — with us always. And the Lord knew this would be the case. The remedy is to seek His kingdom and righteousness FIRST! (v.33)

Still others become flea chasers in seeking after earthly treasures and personal pleasures. Jesus reminds us that such cares, riches and pleasures can choke out the Word and render us unfruitful (Lk. 8). The Lord's cause is hurt by such flea chasers. How is it with you? Do you pursue righteousness — or fleas?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.VI Pg.4

August 1982

Sacerdotalism

Robert F. Turner

We hope that heading will not turn you off or scare you away. It is rarely discussed these days, yet has a place in the thinking of many who do not recognize its presence. Webster says it is "Of priests; relating to the priestly office or function. The doctrine that ordination confers special powers and rights." Still wonder why we brought it up??

Priests in many of today's churches are specially empowered administrators who alone can dispense grace by means of the sacraments. In R.C. doctrine: "...they are also the dispensers of His graces and the almoners of His mercy ... To them alone He gave the power of consecrating His Body and Blood and dispensing the same to the faithful. He has empowered the Priests to impart the grace of regeneration in Baptism." (Faith of Our Fathers, Gibbons.) Need more??

This has direct bearing on church concepts. "The Church alone dispenses the sacraments. It alone makes known the light of revealed truth. Outside the Church these gifts cannot be obtained." (Catholic Encyclopedia, V.3) Is it beginning to get through to you?

The R.C. (and others) believe the Lord established an institution (the church), gave it administrators (the Apostles and their successors), put subject to their administrative power the sacraments ("channels of grace"); so that the institution stands squarely between man and God. "The church" makes valid one's baptism; only "the church" can serve the Lord's Supper; indeed, "The only authority which non-Catholics have for the inspiration of the Scriptures is the authority of the Catholic Church" — so says O'Brien in "Understanding the Catholic Faith." Augustine said, "I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Church" (Schaff, V.7.)

Are Roman Catholics the only ones who have such a concept of "church"? They spell it out for us, but many others accept the spirit of this error. "The great middle-section of the church" just couldn't be wrong — or so we are told. "Baptism is not valid unless one of our preachers baptize you" says another. "The church must serve the Lord's Supper, says another. Somehow many have accepted the idea that the institution administers blessings instead of being the ones on whom the Lord bestows blessings.

Have we truly partaken of the Supper because of who served it, or the hour or place served; or must we commune with the Lord? Can a certain preacher make baptism valid for one who lacks personal faith or dedication? Do we go to "the church" which in turn goes to the Lord on our behalf; or have we a direct relationship with the Heavenly Father through Jesus Christ, our High Priest?

Sacerdotalism is by no means dead, nor is it confined to the R.C. church. It pops to the surface in discussion of "exclusive" work of the church. We certainly believe the church has assigned functions, but we should be careful in our studies to differentiate "validating authority" from simply "doing" as a team, what the Lord authorized all His followers to do. We are a royal and holy priesthood.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.VI Pg.5

August 1982

Use Your Bible

Dan S. Shipley

THE MAN APPROVED OF GOD (2 Tim. 2:15)

I. Is Not:

A. The sinlessly perfect man

1. If so, none could be approved (Rom. 3:23; 1 Jn. 1:8,10) 2. Perfection is our goal; forgiveness our hope & consolation

B. The man who commends himself (2 Cor. 10:18)

1. As the self-righteous Pharisees (Lk. 18:9-14) 2. Subjectivism encourages self-commendation

C. The man approved by others

1. They can only look on outward appearance (1 Sam. 16:7) 2. Becomes the basis of people-oriented religion (Lk. 16:15)

II. IS THE MAN WHO WORKS AT IT ("a workman")

A. "Give diligence..."

1. Diligence involves hastening and exertion (see Vine's) a. Hastening suggests urgency; not to be put off b. Exertion means working at it

2. Proves that man can and must DO something to be approved

B. Paul's aim must be ours (2 Cor. 5:9)

1. Such an aim motivates to giving diligence 2. Pleasing God will not be accidental 3. Promotes steadfastness, abounding in Lord's work (1 Cor. 15:58)

C. This is the great need for God's people today!

1. All covet God's approval but few willing to work

III. IS THE MAN WHO HANDLES ARIGHT THE WORD OF TRUTH

A. Suggests carefulness in handling God's word

1. Not to be twisted (2 Pet. 3:16), misapplied, taken out of context, used of wrong motive, etc.

B. Handling aright includes:

1. Speaking it "in season and out", reproving, rebuking, etc. 2. Applying it to all circumstances & all men including self 3. Ever remembering its source, power and purpose

Iv. Is The Man Who Approves Of God's Ways

A. See the inconsistency of seeking God's approval while: 1. Not approving God's terms of pardon 2. Not approving His church as revealed in NT 3. Not approving His ways concerning work & worship of church

B. The man approved of God approves "things that are excellent" 1. Holds fast to things that are "good" (1 Thss. 5:21) 2. Rejects all that God does not authorize 3. No religion is worth practicing that does not seek God's approval in every respect.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.VI Pg.6

August 1982

Glory To God

Robert F. Turner

The majesty of the soaring eagle or the gaudy splendor of a peacock assuredly declares the glory of their creator. What about the old black, baldheaded buzzard? He is ugly and repulsive. Does he glorify God? Beware! Do not confuse glamour and glorifying God. The buzzard's wide wings allow him to soar effortlessly over the countryside. His keen eye misses nothing on the ground. He is powerfully equipped with claw to hold and beak to tear. His demanding appetite drives him and he cleans the land of all carrion. The old buzzard lacks glamour, but he magnificently does his job. He glorifies his creator.

A woman appears on a TV talk show. She glides gracefully across the floor in a dress shockingly split up the sides and down the front. Soft curls fall across her bare shoulders and back. She talks of love nests, and jokes of her many lovers. She confides her scandalous indiscretion. She admits coyly to being a sex-idol. Glamorous she may be, but she perverts God's good design for woman. "Glorify God in your body and your spirit" (1 Cor. 6:20), but the body is not for fornication (vs. 13) — nor for lasciviousness. God is not glorified.

Look at another scene. The woman is wearing her old clothes and her hair is tied with a bandanna. She is working hard at cleaning her house and washing clothes. She stops for a moment, as a crying baby demands his dirty diaper be changed. Neither the woman nor her work is glamorous, but she glorifies God. She is doing the work God assigned wives and mothers, God is glorified. There are two considerations for a creation to glorify its creator. First, it must have a worthwhile purpose. A machine has an impressive array of wheels, pulleys, belts, and chains. Lights flash; bells ring. It is impressive. "What is this machine supposed to do?" "Well, nothing." The designer is not glorified. Second, it must function dependably. If the machine repeatedly fails to run or if it simply will not do what it is designed to do, the designer is not glorified.

We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:10). We are designed as Christians to have a worthwhile purpose — unto good works. It is decreed that we should walk--manner of life, habit--in good works. "...they may see your good works and glorify the father..." (Mt. 5:16). Thus when we are "fruitful in every good work" (Col. 1:10), God is glorified in all things (1 Pet. 4:11).

Elders teach, encourage, and watch for souls (Heb. 13:17). No glamour. They may never be mistaken for corporate presidents, but they do a very good work (1 Tim. 3:1). They should be honored in their diligence (1 Tim. 5:17). And God is glorified. A local church worships, teaches, edifies, shows compassion on their weak and destitute. They may never make the news, but men are developing the stature of Christ (Eph. 4:13). God's wisdom is displayed (3:10), and God is glorified through the church (3:21).

Joe Fitch 6326 Peacepipe San Antonio, TX

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.VI Pg.7

August 1982

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

To what extent does freedom and liberty in Christ (Gal. 5: 1; 2 Cor. 3: 17) remove obligations to obey law?

Reply:

I assume "law" refers to things taught, by command, example, or necessary inference, that impose divine regulations upon us. Some seem to use such passages cited to say we have no obligations. Being not under law but under grace for justification does not mean we are free of divine regulations. The system of faith "establishes law" (Rom. 3:31), and we must "hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thes. 2:15).

The "freedom" of Gal. 5: is from the bondage (or "curse") of a system of law for justification (3:10-13). To be "free of guilt" via law, one had to "do all" or perfectly obey. Christ's death made forgiveness possible, so that though we are less than perfect, through faith in Christ (going to Him for mercy) we can be saved. This "freedom" does not "free" us of obligations to obey. "Ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another" (Gal. 5:13). The perfecting of faith is accomplished by the "obedience of faith" (Jas. 2:20-26; Rom. 16:26).

Freedom in Christ also refers to our escape from the bondage of sin. When Jesus said, "The truth shall make you free" (Jn. 8:32), he added, "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant (slave) of sin." Freedom from the guilt of past sins (Acts 2:38), and access to God's throne for mercy respecting later sins, is certainly not freedom from obligation to law. Paul tells us the appetites of the flesh bring one "into captivity to the law of sin which is in (one's) members" (Rom. 7:23). Christ is the remedy, "for the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death" (8:2); but this "freedom" is only for those who accept the obligation to "walk after the spirit" "led by the Spirit of God" (vs. 4, 14).

As an additional consideration, those who are, by Christ, made free from sin, become "servants (slaves) of righteousness" (Rom. 6:18; 1 Cor. 7: 22-23). Christians practice "second mile" religion (Matt. 5:38-45), going beyond the requirements. For the sake of a pagan's conscience, and to glorify God, we must give up, at times, our "liberty" to do things not wrong in themselves — but which might harm another (1 Cor. 10:25-31; 8:9-13). We must defer to a weak brother who has imperfect knowledge concerning some matter of judgment (Rom. 14:20-21). To do otherwise is to abuse our liberty in Christ (1 Pet: 2:16).

Freedom in Christ puts obedience on a different level, makes it a work of love, a response to principles we have accepted in our heart, mind, or spirit (2 Cor. 3:3; Heb. 8:10), but the source of such "law" is divine revelation, and it can not be ignored with impunity. Libertines promise freedom only to recapture those who are free in Christ, and again enslave them to lusts of the flesh (2 Pet. 2:17-19). Brethren, shun this snare of Satan.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.VI Pg.8

August 1982

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Perhaps I learned this from my mother, although I am not sure just when or how. Some people want to "be somebody" — and some just want to be treated like "somebody" — and there is a difference. For the later, one must pat people on the back, be seen with the right people, buy a big car, cultivate a superior air. With a bit of luck some people may think you are "somebody", and may seat you at the head table. If they call on you for a speech you can fake it with a few big words like "sacerdotalism".

But to "be somebody thats a horse of a different color. First you have to figure out what or who "somebody" really is. The world is kinda confused on this point, and is not much help. Most of the world has never understood how you can get up by getting down (Matt. 20:25-28), or die in order to live (10:39). And the one who is somebody is not going to tell you about it. He's too busy being somebody to talk about it, or to be much concerned what folk think about it. In fact, he may not know he is somebody; or knowing, is scared of it. People who are somebody have a grave sense of responsibility. Best I can tell, by just watching and thinking, anybody can be somebody if they are more interested in the process than they are in the product. Seems like those who are somebody couldn't care less about being somebody; but every one of them is plum sold on doing what it takes to be somebody. They are content with their place in life, without being too lazy to move up when the opening comes. They carefully prepare themselves for service, cultivating their talents and correcting their faults. And they are so interested in using themselves they never try to use others.

They are honest, with you and with themselves; humbled before God and considerate of their fellowmen. They are parents, domestics, professionals, ranch hands, teachers, bank clerks — giving their best, whatever that may be. They carry no chip if you forget their names, but you count it a privilege to know them. Some of them will have monuments of stone or bronze, but all will leave an indelible mark for good on civilization. No telling what could be done if we were less interested in acting like somebody, and got around to being somebody.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.VII Pg.1

September 1982

One Thing Thou Lackest

Robert F. Turner

And then Jesus told him six things to do: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor... and come, take up the cross, and follow me (Mk. 10:21). Six things? Or was it really just, "You must change your allegiance—put me before worldly possessions." The records say Jesus "beholding him loved him" but that love did not change the requirements, and he allowed the young man to go away sad and grieved—but unsaved.

Sometimes I hear brethren speak of some good neighbor, well loved and respected for his clean moral life; and they say, "All he would have to do is just be baptized." How very wrong and shallow we can be at times.

"Just be baptized"? Just see yourself as a lost sinner, wholly dependent upon the mercies of God? Just die to your past life? Just submit to Him as Lord, in an act of dedication, a pledge to put Him first for the remainder of your life, regardless of the cost? The problem here is, we are unaware of our own failures, our own lack of dedication, our tarnished new life (?), but want to use ourselves as the standard for measuring others whom we would see "come to Christ." To Christ? Or to be with us??

An obedient faith is "one thing" all lack, who have not come to Jesus Christ; but Jesus actually was being more particular than we have indicated. When he spoke of "one thing" he seemed to see the young ruler was allowing material possessions to stand between him and God. In that sense, our lack of dedication may be due to some particular weakness—some "one thing" that keeps us from seeing ourselves as we are, and changing our way of life. One's craze for popularity, another's desire for power, envy of the neighbors (called "keeping up with the Jones"), or pure ego. These "one things" and more like them, can be the particulars that keep many of us from serving Christ as we should.

My mother used to say, "A little thing may keep you out of heaven." She knew it wasn't "little" if it did that—but she wanted me to realize something I gave scant attention perhaps deserved prayer and work. Don't allow "one thing" to damn your soul.